The Washington critic., 1887-05-04
aPPRENTICEsHIPs.

torlal CfltlClem oil q circular recclVeu from
the Typographical Union in relation to ap-
prentlces, and have waited few days to
see II some member Of our craft, better able
than /, would not set you right, my
knowledge OF the general fairness OF TnE
CRITIo's management not allowing me to
suppose for a moment that II Is not willing
TO receive light. The laws Of the Typo
graphical Union permit iwu apprentices in
Offices where lees than seven lnrucymen
are employed, aud where thcte are more
than seven iourueymcu. four apprentices.
That seems to mc extremely liberil-lu
fact, there Is not another typographical
Union In the country 50 liberal ltiOcs not
require great mind to figure uUt that that
number will more than cqutliEe the NOR
tally aud the natural growth Of the bust
ness, Because every boy whn wants to
learn particular trade at a particular time
is lot gratiied great many people set up
howl; but II is the lot Of mankind to have
wishes which cannot he gritted, at least
not without awaiting opportunities There
are more printers here out of employment
or who have abandoned the business for
lack Of work, than In any other city-a re.
suit OF too liberal apprenticeship regula-
tiors.
1t will readily be seen By Tue CRITIC
that If there were no restrictions as to the
lumber Of apprentices, the slop shop estib-
lishments would employ nothing hut boys
and thus the rates for printing would be cut
until the decent Offices would have to
adopt the same course. Then would begin
an era OF "cheap and nastyn printing, aud
the end OF boys apprenticeship would
witness his discharge to make room for an
other apprentice; and the newly-1edged
journeyman would find himself In posses
sion OF trade at which there was no work
for journeymen to do. This is exempllied
in a case of a certain job printing office in
this city which the officers OF the Union had
neglected. In 1t were found fourteen ap-
pren'ices and one journeyman. Does TnE
Critic suppose those boys could ever learn
printing under such circumstances, even II
the trade, under such conditions, were
worth learning?
AS to the question OF the Unions right
to control the increase of printers, that Is
hardly worth discussing. The Union must
control 1t, for its life depends on 1t. Give
unlimited liberty to increase the number OF
printers, and the Union would be crushed
out OF existence by reason Of not being able
to keep Its membership at work. And II is
not hard to realize what the trade would be
worth without the Union. There are not
many George w. Childses among you,
Messrs. Proprietors. When you raise the
rates of advertising and receive large in
creases OF circulation, you do not say to the
printers: "We are enjoying season Of
IIOepcIltJ, UOyb, WUuL you nave bOne OF
itg We will raise the price of composition
ten per cent" No. gentlemen it is only
when you have the season OF adversely that
you have anything to say to the composing
room, and then it is a demNnl for reluc-
tion. So you see the Unlln is necessity,
ard 1t must exercise all prerogttives neces-
cary to existence.
one other thing. Do not allow
yourselves in the future TO be bd.
raytd tito using that old stock
phrase shout "a mans right to CON
trol his own business You can have no
mote Gown business IN Your composing
room Than your compositors have 1t Is
your business to emplOy them; II ia their
business TO work for son, II you 10 not
like their style OF doing "husiuessn you
discharge them; II they l1 not like your
style they stop work. one man cannot do
busiatss; lie must have some one to do busi-
ness with; aud then IL is the business OF
both.
You gei llemen ot the press, being to
greater or less extent capitalists, are not
slow to cluim that capital must be pro-
tetted. Do not forget that our trade is our
cSlital and we are bound by the laws Of
tlfpreservaiiOn to protect Ii. y. F. B.
Washington, May 2, 1857.
The above communication fails to
convince us that there is the slightest
unsoundness In the position taken by
The CRITIC relative TO apprentice
ships, or that there should not be as
much freedom of selection and freedom
of action, among the young men of the
country who desire to learn trades, as
there is In the choice of other voca-
tions or professions.
But the weakness of our friends
argument consists in its probably un.
Intentional, but, for all that, gross and
obvious misrepresentation of fact.
In the first place, 1t Is not true that
under the rules of the Typographical
Union as they are now fixed THE
CRITIC Office Is allowed four appren-
tices. That number, we admit, would
be liberal" II we further admit that
there is any cast iron rule at all by
which the supply and demand of
printers can be regulated, which, to
say the least of it, is extremely doubt.
ful. But under the present arrange.
ment we are given but two apprentices
instead Of four, the other two boys al
lowed holding such an anomalous posi-
they would not be recognized as jour.
neymen eligible to admission TO the
Union. Two of these boys are EN-.
ployed at the case-thc two others at
the galleys and copy desk. There is
certainly no liberality in this.
Again, the writer asserts that there
are more idle printers here than in any
other city of the Union, all owing to a
too liberal system of apprenticeship.
This is not true. The Government
Printing Office is the magnet that
draws so many printers to Washington
in search of employment, and in mum.
bers far exceeding the demand. 1t is
preposterous to assume that such an
influx Of composltors is due to a super.
fluffy of apprentices.
Another thing. The correspondent
says that 1t is our business to employ
printers; 1t is the printers business to
work for us. If we do not Ike their
style of doing business, we discharge
them II they do not like our style,
they stop work; lone man cannot do
business; he must have some one to do
business with" Very well; the hitch
in this proposition is that while we
have the power to discharge printers,
we are absolutely disabled by the
Union from employing new force.
If 1t takes two to do business, we
Il "A